Regarding the OSM. I have these concerns:
Prone to errors
Very difficult to create from scratch
Each platform has an entirely different graphics subsystem requiring an
incredible amount of rework
There is no OSM on pervasive devices or UNIX systems
We absolutely need the DOM to be able to support the chrome. This is not
just for GUI interfaces but it is also for audio browser interfaces that
need to access information beyond the document such as history lists, etc.
In fact, it was amazing how many of the other companies present at the DOM
3 working group meeting had a need for an application architecture based on
DOM.
This is not to say that IE would not be accessible because it uses MSAA for
the chrome. An accessible application framework is absolutely critical to
address the needs that I am referring to.
The fact is the construction of an OSM requires reverse on engineering on
every new platform. The cost of creating accessibility for each new
platfrom based on the DOM is expensive. New accessible infrastructures like
the DOM, Java Accessibility, and MSAA target accessible objects and not an
OSM because:
They are more accurate
They are less costly to implement
They create an engineered conduit through which to make applications
accessible
I am very proud of our work on the OSM too. However, I am not comfortable
with its limitations and the future accessible web we are all trying to
create it does not fit. I working cross-platform accessible application
model for the web is needed. This model will need to support the chrome.
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems
EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
Frost
thatch@us.ibm.com on 01/29/2000 06:42:43 PM
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mark novak
<menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>, Peter Korn <peter.korn@sun.com>,
w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Subject: Re: Tenative meeting on the DOM with AT vendors for the User
Agent Guidelines
Rich,
In speaking of developing DOM 3 to include agent chrome, you say that
the only alternative is: "going back down the antiquated OSM route to
get the needed information." I would hardly call Off-Screen Model
technology "antiquated." I suspect that having put so much effort into
developing the most stable and robust OSM in the business, you didn't
remember that Screen Reader/2 used OS/2 messages and queries
to get at chrome. So it is today that most screen readers depend
on Windows messages and queries, and those available through from a
common interface, namely MSAA, to access Chrome. I see no reason
for including Chrome in the DOM. The age of OSM technology, about
13 years, has nothing to do with it.
Jim Thatcher
IBM Accessibility Center
www.ibm.com/sns
HPR Quick Help: http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/quickreplace.html
(512)838-0432
schwer@us.ibm.com on 01/28/2000 03:00:04 PM
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
cc: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>, Peter Korn
<peter.korn@sun.com>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Subject: Re: Tenative meeting on the DOM with AT vendors for the User
Agent Guidelines
That's fine.
I think you should know that I met with the DOM working group in
California. We (PF group) plan on extending the DOM further for
accessibility in DOM 3. Furthermore, I have started the wheels rolling on
an editorial team in the DOM working group to address the feasibility of
extending the DOM to include the "chrome." There were a number of DOM WG
members who were very interested in this prospect for a number reasons:
audio browsers pervasive devices, etc.
I don't understand why you feel it is necessary to solicit support given
that there is no other mechanism other than going back down the antiquated
OSM route to get the needed information.
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems
EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
Frost
Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> on 01/27/2000 04:52:46 PM
To: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>, Richard
Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Peter Korn <peter.korn@sun.com>
cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Subject: Tenative meeting on the DOM with AT vendors for the User Agent
Guidelines
Peter, Mark and Rich,
The W3C WAI User Agent guidelines are going to be in Candidate
Recommendation within a day or two. Part of the goal of our candidate
recommendation period is to discuss the use of the DOM with AT vendors for
assistive technologies to provide alternative access to WWW content. We
hope to gain their support in using the DOM as the primary way to provide
an exchange of WWW content between user agents and assistive technologies.
We have tenatively scheduled this meeting for 18 Feburary at 2:00 EST. I
would like to invite all of you to participate in this teleconference and
was wondering about your availability and interest in attending at the
tenative date and time.
Thank you,
Jon
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820
Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua